Author Topic: Dynetics partners with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne for F1 Engine  (Read 213242 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
I posted this to another thread, but it's relevant here. Newest article in the current issue.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2013 08:25 pm by Blackstar »

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
TIA for the write up on this subject Blackstar.

A B&N nearby says they should be getting the Sept issue soon.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Update: Dynetics News release. They are now building tanks at Marshall and using friction stir welding. http://www.dynetics.com/news/347 They also report "outstanding" progress on the entire project.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2013 05:38 pm by TomH »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
I am very excited by this design effort for multiple reasons:

Back in the day when I was a junior engineer in my early 20's, my first "real" job was on the F-1A engine. Someplace I have pictures of me standing beside a test article but I've no idea where they are. I've looked everywhere I can think of with no joy. One day, while looking for something else, I will happen across them. It always happens that way.

Not only will this be an excellent LRB for the SLS, but with an appropriate upper stage it will make a really nice launch vehicle in its own right, even possibly being able to loft Orion into LEO.

As a result, we may actually see the 1.5 launch architecture that Griffin tried to create, an approach I actually liked, but not with solids. If the political realities had not unequivocally mandated the use of the Shuttle SRB, DIRECT may have looked a lot more like AJAX, using 2 pairs of the Atlas CCBs. This SLS combination would "look like" DIRECT (or even Ares-V) but use the  AJAX's concept of LRBs.

The LRB boosted SLS would be the safest and most capable, efficient and cost effective approach to creating an HLV launch system. While I have great respect for ATK's Shuttle SRB and its flight history, I have always been distrustful of ever using solids on a manned launch vehicle. They have a great potential to leak and cannot be shut down to facilitate an abort. There is no guarantee that the thrust curve will follow its design parameter. They may be fine at liftoff and then go seriously bad. Once they are lit on the ground it is do or die, with no in between. At least Shuttle's SRB's were recovered and inspected after use, so you always knew that it had been successfully fired before. Not so with the new ones for SLS. They cannot be test fired or verified. Every launch will be a first time use with no history, a real crap shoot.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2013 11:09 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline winkhomewinkhome

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Eugene OR
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 3023
I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?
Dale R. Winke

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
I took this picture on Tuesday. It's the test tank that Dynetics made.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?

Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
I had no idea any contracts for the Advanced Boosters were even awarded as of yet let alone test articles being built. Is this an initial contract purely looking at risk reduction?

I love the idea of F-1 based LRBs.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Is this an initial contract purely looking at risk reduction?

Yeah, pretty much.

They plan on doing powerpack tests of an F-1B, but that's not a full scale engine.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
I am very excited by this design effort for multiple reasons:

Back in the day when I was a junior engineer in my early 20's, my first "real" job was on the F-1A engine. Someplace I have pictures of me standing beside a test article but I've no idea where they are. I've looked everywhere I can think of with no joy. One day, while looking for something else, I will happen across them. It always happens that way.

Not only will this be an excellent LRB for the SLS, but with an appropriate upper stage it will make a really nice launch vehicle in its own right, even possibly being able to loft Orion into LEO.

As a result, we may actually see the 1.5 launch architecture that Griffin tried to create, an approach I actually liked, but not with solids. If the political realities had not unequivocally mandated the use of the Shuttle SRB, DIRECT may have looked a lot more like AJAX, using 2 pairs of the Atlas CCBs. This SLS combination would "look like" DIRECT (or even Ares-V) but use the  AJAX's concept of LRBs.

The LRB boosted SLS would be the safest and most capable, efficient and cost effective approach to creating an HLV launch system. While I have great respect for ATK's Shuttle SRB and its flight history, I have always been distrustful of ever using solids on a manned launch vehicle. They have a great potential to leak and cannot be shut down to facilitate an abort. There is no guarantee that the thrust curve will follow its design parameter. They may be fine at liftoff and then go seriously bad. Once they are lit on the ground it is do or die, with no in between. At least Shuttle's SRB's were recovered and inspected after use, so you always knew that it had been successfully fired before. Not so with the new ones for SLS. They cannot be test fired or verified. Every launch will be a first time use with no history, a real crap shoot.

That's a pretty convincing argument, IMO.  A system that's safer and more effective simply can't go wrong -- until politics gets in the way.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194

Grumble--this is a very troubling post.  Who pays to make the 5-seg (already obsolete) "legacy" booster work?  ..and for how many missions?
I've said before the 1B variant is the most likely should this beast ever fly.
Now there is legit reason to loudly question the direction of the path currently charted.  Resources should be directed to the (eventual) solution since the time-lines more likely closely overlap now...


I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?

Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909

Grumble--this is a very troubling post.  Who pays to make the 5-seg (already obsolete) "legacy" booster work?  ..and for how many missions?
I've said before the 1B variant is the most likely should this beast ever fly.
Now there is legit reason to loudly question the direction of the path currently charted.  Resources should be directed to the (eventual) solution since the time-lines more likely closely overlap now...


I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?

Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.

Add to that the fact that Orion is slipping to the right as well. Evolving seems a questionable approach. Picking the one design you want to end up with and pursuing only that might be more prudent.

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
I had no idea any contracts for the Advanced Boosters were even awarded as of yet let alone test articles being built. Is this an initial contract purely looking at risk reduction?

I love the idea of F-1 based LRBs.


Contracts were awarded under the Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction (ABEDRR) program:

ATK, Dynetics & Northrop Gumman
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/oct/HQ_12-339_SLS_Awards_Contract.html

Aerojet
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/feb/HQ_13-054_Aerojet_SLS_Boosters.html

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
To be fair, on paper going with the 5 segments for initial flights is the most cost effective solution. It is hard to fault them on that path. I wouldn't call them obsolete either, they have never even flown, and when they do they will be the most powerful SRB ever produced @ 3.6 millions lb thrust. Also, as far I am aware NASA is not paying extra for ATK to continue to cast faulty segments.

It is troubling but there is no doubt that the issues will be fixed in time for EM-1. There is an extremely large padding on the boosters. They aren't even going to have the core on the stand until late 2016 early 2017.

If anything this will help convince them to award the contract for Advanced boosters rather than just ponder it.



Grumble--this is a very troubling post.  Who pays to make the 5-seg (already obsolete) "legacy" booster work?  ..and for how many missions?
I've said before the 1B variant is the most likely should this beast ever fly.
Now there is legit reason to loudly question the direction of the path currently charted.  Resources should be directed to the (eventual) solution since the time-lines more likely closely overlap now...


I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?

Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.
« Last Edit: 08/18/2013 04:50 pm by newpylong »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
I am very excited by this design effort for multiple reasons:

Back in the day when I was a junior engineer in my early 20's, my first "real" job was on the F-1A engine. Someplace I have pictures of me standing beside a test article but I've no idea where they are. I've looked everywhere I can think of with no joy. One day, while looking for something else, I will happen across them. It always happens that way.

Not only will this be an excellent LRB for the SLS, but with an appropriate upper stage it will make a really nice launch vehicle in its own right, even possibly being able to loft Orion into LEO.

As a result, we may actually see the 1.5 launch architecture that Griffin tried to create, an approach I actually liked, but not with solids. If the political realities had not unequivocally mandated the use of the Shuttle SRB, DIRECT may have looked a lot more like AJAX, using 2 pairs of the Atlas CCBs. This SLS combination would "look like" DIRECT (or even Ares-V) but use the  AJAX's concept of LRBs.

The LRB boosted SLS would be the safest and most capable, efficient and cost effective approach to creating an HLV launch system. While I have great respect for ATK's Shuttle SRB and its flight history, I have always been distrustful of ever using solids on a manned launch vehicle. They have a great potential to leak and cannot be shut down to facilitate an abort. There is no guarantee that the thrust curve will follow its design parameter. They may be fine at liftoff and then go seriously bad. Once they are lit on the ground it is do or die, with no in between. At least Shuttle's SRB's were recovered and inspected after use, so you always knew that it had been successfully fired before. Not so with the new ones for SLS. They cannot be test fired or verified. Every launch will be a first time use with no history, a real crap shoot.

Chuck,

Well said and agreed.

My concerns would be the extra money spent on development of an advanced booster if there's a cheap way to continue with the 5-seg (not sure if steel casing production can be restarted cheaply/easily or not).
And if it is unfeasible to restart 5-seg casing production, even if the Dynetics booster would be comparable in cost to ATK's composite booster, and beat out the composite booster based on your arguments, you still have a bit of the same quandry as the SRB.  You have a booster that would need a new upper stage to get Orion or any payload to LEO, just as Ares 1 did.  That would basically be a D4H class ELV that would enter an already crowded ELV market, and unless it was really cheap and could compete against FH to LEO in price, I doubt it would launch anything but Orion in a 1.5 launch architecture redux.  If Orion were to be doing ISS servicing, then that forms a better architecture for it.  But that will be done by commercial crew now.
So...wouldn't that be a little bit of a CxP redux, just liquid instead of solid?

Also, unless there is a snag, FH should be able to loft Orion for a 1.5 architecture, and it would already be man-rated or nearly man-rated...if Elon is to be believed.  That could give Orion the backup duty to ISS, and not need the development of a new upper stage for the Dynetics booster.  Also suppliment A Block 1B SLS to give it that extra 25mt of LEO capacity by not having Orion on the SLS stack. 

But...that's my brain talking, with my heart, I'd just love to see an F-1 powered LV again!  And we may see it at least as an LRB for SLS.

Also...I suppose an interesting compromise could be using the FH upper stage on the Dynetics booster for Orion.  It's only going to LEO after all.  But not sure if it could get Orion to LEO as it stages higher even on a non crossfed FH than I think the Dynetics booster would.  But, it's high thrust which is good for that low staging, so is an interesting thought.
It could also launch off the same mobile launcher as SLS with Dynetics booster off the booster flame port, except in a 1.5 architecture, SLS will need that ML.  So there'd need to be a new ML for it. 
I don't know that Elon would mind selling more upper stages to NASA, even if they aren't flying on the Falcon booster.  As long as it has "SpaceX" on it's side and lots of video and pictures are taken of that.

Although, If SpaceX actually does lease 39A and sets it up to be able to launch crews on F9v1.1 and FH, it might just be easier all the way around to launch Orion on FH on a 1.5 architecture?

« Last Edit: 08/19/2013 10:06 pm by Lobo »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0